On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

on petition for review of unpublished order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; for amicus (WACDL): Robert R. Henak; for amicus (Appellate Section, State Bar): Anne B. Kearney; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether counsel is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the court of appeals imposes a monetary or other penalty for an alleged violation of rules of appellate procedure.

Whether the court of appeals’

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part III

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part II (default; standard of review),

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part I

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part II (procedural default) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, guilty plea advice),

City of West Allis v. Susan Schneidler, 2010AP2531, District 1, 4/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schneidler: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

Tip from an identified citizen informant – that she had seen Schneidler drinking alcohol before driving off – supported stop of Schneidler’s car, without requiring independent corroboration.

¶18      In short, Parr was a reliable witness who told police that she personally observed Schneidler drink alcohol and then drive and who made herself available to the police for questioning. 

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11

7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay

Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation

The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.

State v. Christopher Donnell Jones, 2010AP164-CR, District 1, 3/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Jones: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Counsel’s failure to impeach police officers with their reports, which omitted certain details they testified to, wasn’t prejudicial. Therefore, the postconviction court properly denied relief without holding a Machner hearing.

¶18 We disagree.  The omission of these reports did not prejudice Jones’s case. 

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity

Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. The witness was taking his medication at the time of the alleged offense,

State v. Winston B. Eison, 2011 WI App 52; for Eison: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Preservation of Issue – Motion in Limine

Eison objected to introduction of evidence of his arrest on an unrelated offense via motion in limine, which the trial court granted. At trial, however, the court allowed the State to introduce this evidence. Eison didn’t need to lodge additional objection to preserve the issue for review.

State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28; for Copeland: David Leeper; case activity

Trial court has discretion under § 906.15(3) to order an attorney not to discuss with a sequestered witness who hasn’t yet testified the testimony of other witnesses; this authority extends to barring counsel from providing the sequestered witness with a transcript of prior-witness testimony. The trial court in this instance misperceived a lack of such authority,